Mineo v. Owen W. Young, M.D., P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mineo v. Owen W. Young, M.D., P. C.

248 A.D.2d 1012, 670 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3107

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 1012 (Mineo v. Owen W. Young, M.D., P. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mineo v. Owen W. Young, M.D., P. C., 248 A.D.2d 1012, 670 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Qualification -of an expert is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 NY 389, 398-399; Kletnieks v Brookhaven Mem. Assn., 53 AD2d 169, 175), and that discretion was not abused in this case (cf, Daum v Auburn Mem. Hosp., 198 AD2d 899). The court properly rejected defendant’s contention that plaintiffs expert, a physician specializing in radiology, was not competent to render an expert opinion with respect to the treatment of plaintiffs decedent by defendant, an orthopedic surgeon (see, Fuller v Preis, 35 NY2d 425, 431; DaRonco v White Plains Hosp. Ctr., 215 AD2d 339, 340; Behan v Data Probe Intl., 213 AD2d 439, 440-441). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Qualification -of an expert is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 NY 389, 398-399; Kletnieks v Brookhaven Mem. Assn., 53 AD2d 169, 175), and that discretion was not abused in this case (cf, Daum v Auburn Mem. Hosp., 198 AD2d 899). The court properly rejected defendant’s contention that plaintiffs expert, a physician specializing in radiology, was not competent to render an expert opinion with respect to the treatment of plaintiffs decedent by defendant, an orthopedic surgeon (see, Fuller v Preis, 35 NY2d 425, 431; DaRonco v White Plains Hosp. Ctr., 215 AD2d 339, 340; Behan v Data Probe Intl., 213 AD2d 439, 440-441). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 1012, 670 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mineo-v-owen-w-young-md-p-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack